To expect a Headteacher to see my point and show compasion and flexibility? When is a mobile phone NOT a mobile phone?

[Yorkshiremix]

So sorry if this is a bit long but I am in need of other opinions, whether I'm right or wrong please.

The background is that I am single mum and totally broke, I mean I'm lucky if there is a spare £5 or £10 left each week after food and bills (not including clothes or clubs or anything nice). So paying for my daughter to go away on the year 6 residential trip has been a major hardship for us, but I did it and she was looking forward to her first holiday in 6 years.

Letters had come home stating no mobile phones were allowed but the kids could take MP3's and cameras at their own risk. I have never allowed my daughter to have a mobile phone, not only can we not afford it but I feel strongly that they are not necessary at her age. A couple of years ago my son (age 21) gave his sister his old mobile phone so that she could use it as an MP3 as she had been asking for an ipod and I couldn't afford it. She has been happily using this as a camera and MP3 now for the past 2 years, never again asking for an ipod. So knowing that it wasn't working as a mobile and was the only camera that we had, as I really couldn't afford even a disposable along with the developing fee, I went to the headteacher and explained the situation asking her to allow my daughter to take it. She refused.

I went home and after thinking about it I became increasingly frustrated, so I sent her an email, telling her that, as it was impossible to use it as a mobile phone without a valid sim card, (it has a very old sim in it to enable use, that can neither call out or call in, in fact if you access the number of the sim and ring it, some random bloke answers, as the sim is that old the number has been reassigned) and therefore it was just a piece of equipment for use as an MP3 and camera and as she was allowing children to take MP3's and cameras, I would therefore have to disagree with her decision and would be allowing my daughter to take it as I had already explained to her that we couldn't afford anything else.

When they arrived, my daughter sent me a letter which didn't reach me until the morning that they were due home, begging me to call her, very upset, the headteacher had taken it from her when they arrived and had refused to let her call me. When I collected her, she was still upset, she was the only child without a camera and had no pictures of her holiday. The head gave it back to her 10 mins before they arrived home, she wouldn't even let her listen to her music on the 3 hour bus journey home. My daughter informs me that many children had taken an ipod touch which, with the right application, can even send emails within a wi-fi area. It was totally impossible for my daughters to be used as a phone.

I am furious, I told the headteacher so. I asked her if she had even tried to make a call on it or call the phone? She said she hadn't. I asked her if she had confiscated any other child's MP3 or camera? She said no she hadn't. I asked her why she allowed all the other kids to have ipods that can email then? She said that she wouldn't be next year (very immature).

Am I being unreasonable to be upset by this? Was she being narrow-minded, lacking in common sense and compassion? In this day and age of technology, why can't she see that a mobile phone can be used in other capacities without being able to make calls, are we supposed to just fill up landfills with all this technology rather than put it to use elsewhere?

Really, what harm did it do anyone? The only one upset on that trip ended up being my daughter. I have demanded an apology, but she refuses.

How do you know that every single other child had a camera?

hmmm - difficult one - I see the point the others are making.

BUT - it's a bit like the "you've got a TV therefore you must have a TV licence........even if it's you don't have any equipment to watch TV and only use it for DVD's (for which you don't need a licence).

Surely, as with a TV that can't be used to watch TV one, the head could have been shown that the phone part of it wouldn't work, and at YR6 aged the DD would have been able to show her peers that it didn't work as well.

I think the head was unresonable yes. I also think she was unresonable to not try to aid your daughter in getting some sort of camera (Im sure one of the teachers had a old one they could have lend out we certainly do) if she felt that strongly about the mobile phone.

However I have to say I also think you were unresonable in not expecting her to confiscate it.

I would however complain about the fact your daugther when upset was not permitted to phone you that imo is completely out of order.

but with the rest of it. I think both you and the head are BU

But perhaps you could have borrowed a camera from a friend or family member instead? I'm sure someone would have been happy to do that on the basis that she'd have been the only one without, and your daughter wouldn't have been singled out.
I just think that there are other avenues you could have taken here which wouldn't have resulted in the Head basically making an example of you via your daughter.

To be honest, and I don't mean this in a snooty way, but your child isn't the only child in the school whose parent may have felt they had a special reason for being allowed to bring a phone. There were probably children who suffer from homesickness, who are a bit nervous being away from their parents etc. While the HT may have felt compassion on an individual basis for your daughter's situation she has probably learnt from experience that if you make an exception for one child you will have to make an exception for several.

YABU the head said no mobiles-she didn't specify whether they were apparently working or not.

You could have bought her a disposable camera for about £2.50 or borrowed one.

If you would like a working but not very valuable digital camera CAT me, it takes the expensive batteries (duracell etc) so that would obv be an expense as it cant be charged like a phone but i would happily send it for free

you can get disposable camera in the pound shop.

But that's not the point is it? You were told that no mobile phones were allowed. You decided to butt heads (no pun intended) about this (but decided to ignore the fact that your DD was being put into a situation in which bullying was likely to occur?) and The headteacher butted harder than you.

I think your priorities are a little off TBH.

have you ever used one of those disposable cameras from the 99p shop or for £2.50 - they're utter shite - and half the bloody time they don't work.

The thing is that if the head had listened to the OP, and even seen the phone for herself she would have seen that it served sod all use as a phone, and was purely usable only as a camera and MP3 player (which were allowed on the trip) - and it would have been easy enough for the OP's DD to show the other pupils on the trip that it only useful as those things and wasn't a phone at all. (my phone isn't just a phone, it's my diary, alarm clock and calculator too - as it happens the "phone" does work as well - but the OP's case it didn't)

Although having said that I do think it was a bit daft of the OP to go over the head's ruling (even if the head was a bit over zealous)

You engineered the discomfort and embarassment felt by your daughter by openly flouting the rules. You are very much playing the victim role, poor me, lone parent, not much money bla bla bla. You have demanded an apology !!! Words fail me, so your daughter didnt have a camera or mp3 player, whoopey do, nor do mine. Are they crying into their pillow, of course not, I wouldnt allow them to wallow is such self pity.

On residential trips that I know of one of the teachers has always taken loads of photos which then go on the school website. I dont believe for a minute this is not the case at your school.

Do 10 year olds really have ipods and mobile phones?? ........I'd best get saving!!

YABU by the way. The head refused so you shouldn't have undermined her IMO.

Perhaps the head was being compassionate. If the OP's DD has been being bullied, then seemingly having a "phone" and being different, or even having a phone and having to explain that this was her camera/MP3 (and the other children then seeing it was a defunct, out of date phone) would have given them more opportunity to pick on her.

The head was quite clear, IMO - no mobile phones. OP, you deliberatley chose to flout the rules, thereby teaching your DD that rules are not important and/or do not need to apply to her. That was wrong of you. Now, by making such a fuss about it (and I imagine your DD knows you are making/going to make a fuss at school) you are confirming that she does not have to follow rules. And she's off to secondary school in September, potentially with the opinion that she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do, as you will sort it out. As a secondary teacher, I have plenty of problems with children who don't feel that the rules apply to them, and with parents who will flout the rules on their childrens' behalf. It makes life very difficult for all concerned.

but it was only the shape of a mobile phone the "phone" didn't work!

And the OP states that the DD has been using the phone for 2 years as an Ipod - presumably without any issues from her peers.......so to suggest that they would have bullied her for that now seems a little odd.

The problem is that no teacher wants the hassle of making explanations like: "I know we've said that mobile phones are banned but this child is a special case because her mobile phone isn't actually a mobile phone. So I want you all to realise that while your mobile phones had to be left behind, she can bring hers."

Especially since every child who has reluctantly left their phone at home will return from the trip and tell their parents that "OP's child" was allowed to bring hers. Which will open another set of quite unnecessary floodgates. If OP's child is also being bullied it is difficult to see how helpful it would be to draw attention to her in this manner either.

Personally, I don't see the need for children to bring expensive (and so often lost or damaged) stuff like cameras and I-Pods on school trips. But if they do and there are specific rules you really have to go along with them or risk seriously pissing off the teachers. Which quite clearly the OP has.

YABU - you told the Head you were going to overrule her and then wondered why she took offence to your blatant disregard of the rules and confiscated the phone/camera/mp3.

Tricky one, the Head does seem unreasonable to have not at least allowed you to prove that the phone wasn't a phone - does it still work if you take out the sim card ?
I have to agree that it does seem a bit strange that you are more concerned about the phone than the bullying -have you raised that with the Head ?

I can see both points of view and fully understand your frustration. When you are struggling with money, these things take on an enormous significance. You must have felt as though you let her down.

BUT you didn't, she went on the trip, and I'd like to say well done, by the way for affording the trip; when I was first split up from my children's father they just couldn't go on these things and the guilt I felt was immense.

I'm sure someone will share their pictures if you ask around.

You must deal with the bullying though, don't let that go unchallenged.

(PS I think the head, as Emsie said was too stiffnecked to back down, nasty pasty!!)

It would have taken one word from the head to say to any kid that asked, that this was brought because she didn't have a camera and that the phone didn't work.

YABU. I would imagine that if other students had asked the head and found this out, it would have exacerbated the bullying. Particularly as you say she's already been picked on for being less well off.

The Head said no, that should have been the end of the matter. Would the phone have worked if someone else had put a sim in it?

you were out of order you shouldn't have sent a mobile phone even if it can't be used as a phone

would YR6's - some of whom presumably already knew that the "phone" wasn't actually a working phone (given that she's been using it for 2yrs already!) actually NEED an adult to explain to them?

Surely those that cared would ask her directly - and she'd show them. Those that didn't care.......well they wouldn't care.

For quite a while my phone was also my camera (was an N95 with a damn good camera on it). On more than one occasion I explained in various circumstances, that I had put it on silent, but was leaving it switched on because I was using my camera.

Obviously I think the OP was wrong to send the DD with the phone after the head had said no - but I think the head could have been more sympathetic.

Yes, if you look at the minutiae, the Head WAS being a bit mean and unreasonable, but unfortunately, schools run on broad brush strokes and rule enforecement, not looking at every possible variation...

I sympathise with the 'no camera / no MP3 player' feeling. But in truth, rather than working yourself and your dd up about what you haven't got and aren't allowed to do, in pursuit of a standard set by a group of not-very-nice-sounding girls, why not focus yours and your dd's energies into being prooud that you manage as much as you do on a low incpome, and did save up for the trip, being 'so what' about gadgets, and letting your dd know that a trip is to be enjoyed for it's own sake whether or not it is photographed an nauseam. All that is easier said than done, I know, but please focus on letting your dd enjoy the actual experiences they were there to enjoy and for which you saved, not the side issues of litening to music on th coach and taking endless boring pictures.

Honestly, if you and she allowed this to ruin the week, you both need to change your perspective.

slightly off topic - but I think with the increase in the number of phones that are phones, MP3 players and camera's all rolled into one many schools are going to face this issue if any of those 3 are allowed on trips.

FWIW - DS1 has just today come back off his YR4 residential, phones and MP3 players were banned but they were allowed to take cameras.

There were only 3 of them that didn't have camera's apparently - and everyone in his room that he was sharing with had one with them,.

oh I don't know Blu - I still look back fondly of my YR6 school residential photos and they bring back fab memories - lots of photos in our shared dorm when we should have been sleeping but stayed up late at night talking instead hehe..........some of us are born to take photos and a trip out without a camera is unthinkable

YABU and deliberately obtuse imo.

You also probably made things worse for your dd.

EmsieRo - how exactly is a blanket ban on mobiles discriminatory against less affluent families?